Some of you are probably going to take this out of context and assume I'm a sissy. So I'll state right here right now I am NOT a sissy. With that said the actual topic:

I was reading through the Master/Slave ads on another forum (*cough* getdare *cough*) and came across an ad. Where we a female dom was looking for females, sissies, and couples. A few people asked what she defined a sissy to be. She came back with a definition I found interesting. One of the lines read "Particularly within the BDSM community, a "sissy" will typically assume the submissive role to a dominant female and/or male partner(s)." Now I found it interesting because it says typically they are submissive. So question to all of you: Can a sissy be a dom? and if so in what situation could you see it happen?

The obvious answer is a switch but I asked could one be a dom? Probably not as interesting as I think it is, but still worth a discussion.

Some of you are probably going to take this out of context and assume I'm a sissy. So I'll state right here right now I am NOT a sissy. With that said the actual topic:

I was reading through the Master/Slave ads on another forum (*cough* getdare *cough*) and came across an ad. Where we a female dom was looking for females, sissies, and couples. A few people asked what she defined a sissy to be. She came back with a definition I found interesting. One of the lines read "Particularly within the BDSM community, a "sissy" will typically assume the submissive role to a dominant female and/or male partner(s)." Now I found it interesting because it says typically they are submissive. So question to all of you: Can a sissy be a dom? and if so in what situation could you see it happen?

The obvious answer is a switch but I asked could one be a dom? Probably not as interesting as I think it is, but still worth a discussion.

Anyone can do anything with enough creative spin. Why couldn't a sissy be a dom is a better question.

To me "a sissy" is a man who is feminized intentionally "unsuccessfully" for humiliation purposes, having his masculinity impugned, and being "made to be" a girl either because it lowers his status, or in some cases with female supremacist flavor, because it improves it and keeps his nasty male libido in check. Whatever floats your boat. It can also be a really frilly and often immature style of female presentation.

If I had a completely feminized male and a non-feminized male, guess who'd be on top between the two of them? So I reiterate, why not?

And why couldn't a woman with a really intense desire to be dominated by crossdressers have one as her Mistress? My submission mechanism doesn't get tripped easily, but a crossdressed guy has the advantage in doing that.

__________________If I had my way we'd sleep every night all wrapped around each other like hibernating rattlesnakes.

I suppose it depends on your definition of sissy. Usually the word implies a degree of submissiveness. On the other hand I've known some men who spent a lot of time dressed in girly clothes, and acting feminine who were also quite dominant (they didn't see themselves as women either which was my first question they were just crossdressers).

"Sissy" is a pretty specific subset of crossdressers. It designates a deliberately submissive role. That's why sissies can't be dominant-- because they are submissive. It's like asking why a sub can't be a Dom.

Crossdressers are a much larger group, and there is no reason why a dominant dude can't also be a crossdresser.

And as I am sure you know, trans women are not crossdressers at all.

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

On the other hand I've known some men who spent a lot of time dressed in girly clothes, and acting feminine who were also quite dominant (they didn't see themselves as women either which was my first question they were just crossdressers).

*sounds of Shank raising his hand to self-disclose*

I am a crossdressing switch who is no longer bottoming, but might once-in-a-while to the right Top, so I am more dominant in my expression right now.

And hell yeah, you just know that many sissies, like many of any other type of submissive you want to think of, have orchestrated their situation to their liking. But they are still not going to identify themselves as Doms... I just googled for "Am a sissy Dom" and didn't find nothing...

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

This is coming from someone outside of lifestyle bdsm, so with that in mind:

Can one enjoy both (or either/or) domination and submission, and not necessarily "be" either of those categories in the hard-set self-defining way that we seem to assume?

I'm a "sissy" in the sense that I enjoy wearing women's clothing, getting fucked in women's clothing, I adopt feminine gesture and stance, and yes, I also like submitting to those who dominate.

But if my partner is not dominant, or does not dominate, there's a good chance that I will naturally assume such a role; because I like the power play aspect of D/s relationships, rather than having an affinity for a role, or positioning. (Tangentially, I do have affinities for roles depending on the relationship negotiated, and preference for positioning changes for me constantly depending on my partner and mood, etc).

Meaning I could damn well be wearing women's clothing but if we've discussed boundaries and kinks, fetishes and a safe word and you're not filling the (dominant) role you wanted to fill, I expand to fill the need for power play within me and will enjoy your submission. Hell, could make it even fucking more delicious if I'm all dolled up and able to tie a motherfucker up~ mmph.

So, just my thoughts.

(As an afterthought, I'm a switch in the bedroom, an introvert, but dominate in my interactions with people. And if I were to find someone and they became my Partner, and they were submissive and enjoyed D/s play, I would "be" a Dom. And it's not like I'd begrudgingly do it, either. If anything I more "begrudgingly" submit to people. :P bcsubspacebutyeah. [/tangent]

OP's last sentence makes me think of the whole bisexual quandry: are they "really" straight, "really" gay, does it depend on who they're with at the time, are they just greedy, are they really just indiscriminate "whores" (as if that's so baaad~. haters gonna hate.), etc?)

This is coming from someone outside of lifestyle bdsm, so with that in mind:

Can one enjoy both (or either/or) domination and submission, and not necessarily "be" either of those categories in the hard-set self-defining way that we seem to assume?

I'm a "sissy" in the sense that I enjoy wearing women's clothing, getting fucked in women's clothing, I adopt feminine gesture and stance, and yes, I also like submitting to those who dominate.

But if my partner is not dominant, or does not dominate, there's a good chance that I will naturally assume such a role; because I like the power play aspect of D/s relationships, rather than having an affinity for a role, or positioning. (Tangentially, I do have affinities for roles depending on the relationship negotiated, and preference for positioning changes for me constantly depending on my partner and mood, etc).

Meaning I could damn well be wearing women's clothing but if we've discussed boundaries and kinks, fetishes and a safe word and you're not filling the (dominant) role you wanted to fill, I expand to fill the need for power play within me and will enjoy your submission. Hell, could make it even fucking more delicious if I'm all dolled up and able to tie a motherfucker up~ mmph.

So, just my thoughts.

(As an afterthought, I'm a switch in the bedroom, an introvert, but dominate in my interactions with people. And if I were to find someone and they became my Partner, and they were submissive and enjoyed D/s play, I would "be" a Dom. And it's not like I'd begrudgingly do it, either. If anything I more "begrudgingly" submit to people. :P bcsubspacebutyeah. [/tangent]

OP's last sentence makes me think of the whole bisexual quandry: are they "really" straight, "really" gay, does it depend on who they're with at the time, are they just greedy, are they really just indiscriminate "whores" (as if that's so baaad~. haters gonna hate.), etc?)

There'
s a little essay link in my sig that you might enjoy reading

As I understand the term, "Sissy" is crossdressing in the context of forced feminising-- they are only doing it because She wants them to, or has forced them to. Supposedly.

Lots of crossdressers dress for completely other reasons and roles.

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76

As I understand the term, "Sissy" is crossdressing in the context of forced feminising-- they are only doing it because She wants them to, or has forced them to. Supposedly.

Lots of crossdressers dress for completely other reasons and roles.

I've read it. I understand the differences between top and bottom, submissive and dominate, and have adressed those differences (not in those terms, though) in my first post. In what ways do you find my understandings of those terms to be different than yours? (or am I right in saying we're saying similar things, but way differently?)

"Sissy" may be referencing forced fem, but does not always have to reference forced feminization. A "sissy" could even reference a male who wants, and requests, to be forcefully feminized for humiliation purposes. Word. But force does not equal domination. Nor does requesting to be feminized mean that one is acting in a submissive manner. There are other factors at play which contribute to the power play at hand; whoever gives up the power of the scene is submissive, whoever takes the power in the scene is dominant. Acts, positioning, and preferred dress can signal but not equal to the taking or giving of this power.

I've read it. I understand the differences between top and bottom, submissive and dominate, and have adressed those differences (not in those terms, though) in my first post. In what ways do you find my understandings of those terms to be different than yours? (or am I right in saying we're saying similar things, but way differently?)

You are, I think, quite right. So many people use "Dominant" when they mean "top." and so forth-- I like to check-- make sure we are on the same page.

Quote:

"Sissy" may be referencing forced fem, but does not always have to reference forced feminization. A "sissy" could even reference a male who wants, and requests, to be forcefully feminized for humiliation purposes. Word. But force does not equal domination. Nor does requesting to be feminized mean that one is acting in a submissive manner. There are other factors at play which contribute to the power play at hand; whoever gives up the power of the scene is submissive, whoever takes the power in the scene is dominant. Acts, positioning, and preferred dress can signal but not equal to the taking or giving of this power.

Netz said it too, earlier in the thread;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netzach

Thinking about this carefully, I RARELY met a truly submissive self-identified sissy, despite the fact that they will all insist on their submissiveness.

Got a giggle out of me

__________________"Oh woe, these be perilous times! Children no longer obey their elders, and everybody is writing a book!"--Pliny the Elder, AD76